As soon as this article was posted/printed every bad person threw out their cell phone and started using a different method to communicate. It makes law enforcement's job harder, not impossible, just harder.

From a strictly practical point of view, if someone was engaged in terrorist communications, wouldn't they use untraceable cell phones, stolen SIMM cards, etc.? And why would they communicate via cell-phone at all if they could do so via some other web-based method that didn't involve actual real-time talking? Couldn't someone just set up an internet site and engage in coded communication that was responded to on another coded website? Unless you knew the two were linked, it would be impossible to surveil.

As soon as this article was posted/printed every bad person threw out their cell phone and started using a different method to communicate. It makes law enforcement's job harder, not impossible, just harder.

You are clearly a smart guy but fundamentally you don't grasp how policing or surveillance works, in terms of at the "mass" level. A group like the NSA has a lot more powers and abilities than just phone tapping or email hacking. Throwing away your phone isn't going to stop the NSA, or indeed most other policing agency, if you are a bad guy. They are going to get you no matter what you do.

You are clearly a smart guy but fundamentally you don't grasp how policing or surveillance works, in terms of at the "mass" level. A group like the NSA has a lot more powers and abilities than just phone tapping or email hacking. Throwing away your phone isn't going to stop the NSA, or indeed most other policing agency, if you are a bad guy. They are going to get you no matter what you do.

From a strictly practical point of view, if someone was engaged in terrorist communications, wouldn't they use untraceable cell phones, stolen SIMM cards, etc.? And why would they communicate via cell-phone at all if they could do so via some other web-based method that didn't involve actual real-time talking? Couldn't someone just set up an internet site and engage in coded communication that was responded to on another coded website? Unless you knew the two were linked, it would be impossible to surveil.

From a strictly practical point of view, if someone was engaged in terrorist communications, wouldn't they use untraceable cell phones, stolen SIMM cards, etc.? And why would they communicate via cell-phone at all if they could do so via some other web-based method that didn't involve actual real-time talking? Couldn't someone just set up an internet site and engage in coded communication that was responded to on another coded website? Unless you knew the two were linked, it would be impossible to surveil.

Its not impossible to watch these people, not with the awesome power of modern computing and surveillance techniques......the background noise of communication is watched globally by the NSA. Its getting to the extent that even mouth to mouth communication between terrorists, even in places as isolated as the Afghani countryside, is not hidden from a group like the NSA. Now what do you think are the powers of the NSA in a place much more accessable to them, like on your own mainland?

Its not impossible to watch these people, not with the awesome power of modern computing and surveillance techniques......the background noise of communication is watched globally by the NSA. Its getting to the extent that even mouth to mouth communication between terrorists, even in places as isolated as the Afghani countryside, is not hidden from a group like the NSA. Now what do you think are the powers of the NSA in a place much more accessable to them, like on your own mainland?

How far are we really from the world of Minority Report? We don't even need to install chips in anybody. Just scan their brain from a satellite and quietly send in a team to "remove" them before they commit a future crime.

How far are we really from the world of Minority Report? We don't even need to install chips in anybody. Just scan their brain from a satellite and quietly send in a team to "remove" them before they commit a future crime.

I did a thesis on police surveillance way back many years ago, and back then I concluded that what you are describing was either already upon us or extremely likely in the near future. Probably the former, TBH. Maybe not exactly with satelite scanning, more along the lines of technology used for mobile phones etc.

Of course, allied to that is a humungous apparatus to deny such a thing exists - hence you will have this type of thing associated with freaky conspiracy theories about the moon-landing or whatever.

I do believe that there is this technology and that it is being used - I also believe that the people using it believe they are doing society a service by doing so. As I said, I have no doubt that many many lives have been saved because of, not only this type of technology, but because of police surveillance in general.

I'm going to venture he knows more about how policing and surveillance works than any of us here do. His take may be utterly biased, but it's a pro take none-the-less.

Maybe, maybe not. However if he's saying that terrorists will avoid surveillance by ditching their phones I think he's way off the mark. If a terrorist is using phone or email, or indeed any form of electronic communication at all to communicate their intentions either explicitly or implicitly, their terrorista days will be extremely short indeed. In other words, terrorists who don't know already to ditch their phones, even before these latest revelations, are likely extremely stupid ones.

I see little differenced between the Snowden case and that of Bradley Manning. They both leaked classified information. Snowden worked for the CIA and I am sure signed agreements. He also worked for a government contractor (Booz Allen) and I am sure signed confidentiality agreements as well.
It's different than a media outlet publishing info they receive. That is freedom of the press and ok.
Snowden did it. He admits it. He is guilty. If a jury nails him, who knows.
Manning is dead meat. Although his is not a jury trial (unusual), the judge would see her career (and pension) terminated unless she finds him guilty.

He also admitted he did it.

Major Hassan also admitted he shot all those people at Fort Hood but claimed he was "defending his people" (sound familiar) who were Moslem freedom fighters overseas.

Maybe, maybe not. However if he's saying that terrorists will avoid surveillance by ditching their phones I think he's way off the mark. If a terrorist is using phone or email, or indeed any form of electronic communication at all to communicate their intentions either explicitly or implicitly, their terrorista days will be extremely short indeed. In other words, terrorists who don't know already to ditch their phones, even before these latest revelations, are likely extremely stupid ones.

Terrorists and/or criminals make mistakes and the more information we make public the harder it becomes to investigate.

Well, ignoring all my usual issues of cost/legallity/etc., having 12 to 20 million people here that we do not know are here or who they are or why they're here or to what ends....that certainly seems like an undue risk to me.

I see little differenced between the Snowden case and that of Bradley Manning. They both leaked classified information. Snowden worked for the CIA and I am sure signed agreements. He also worked for a government contractor (Booz Allen) and I am sure signed confidentiality agreements as well.
It's different than a media outlet publishing info they receive. That is freedom of the press and ok.
Snowden did it. He admits it. He is guilty. If a jury nails him, who knows.
Manning is dead meat. Although his is not a jury trial (unusual), the judge would see her career (and pension) terminated unless she finds him guilty.

He also admitted he did it.

Major Hassan also admitted he shot all those people at Fort Hood but claimed he was "defending his people" (sound familiar) who were Moslem freedom fighters overseas.

Three different cases, the last being completely off the chart different.

Manning is supposed to have leaked information that was of direct value to Al Quaeda. He will be tried in a military court that is closed to the public. He has a snowball's chance in hell of coming out of that scenario with less than the book thrown at him.

Snowden leaked information about a global policy of spying on our own citizens. He did not overtly or directly imperil anyone (I know, the NSA will say he did because he tipped off would-be terrorists everywhere that their phone records were being tracked - as if they didn't guess that already!) in the sense that Manning did, who also leaked stuff that was not of the "naming agents int he field" category. I think he will be convicted, if extradited, but I would not be surprised he there is more leniency here.

The problem is that without proof of these secret practices, the NSA and government in general would just deny and deny. I'm not sure that this stuff gets before the public unless somebody makes themselves a sacrificial lamb.

I might not disapprove of the meta-analysis of phone data per se, as it could have deterrent value. But I do seriously disapprove of secret policies being formed to do so that are not subject to the scrutiny of the electorate. That's a pretty shabby form of freedom.

Snowden is a narcissistic fame whore. Have you seen this clown congratulate himself on worldwide tv last couple days? Friggin little twerp who probably needs to buy prostitutes to lose his virginity and sell out his country to get famous.

Snowden is a narcissistic fame whore. Have you seen this clown congratulate himself on worldwide tv last couple days? Friggin little twerp who probably needs to buy prostitutes to lose his virginity and sell out his country to get famous.

Really? You should have mentioned "self-destructive" narcissistic fame whore, as he has effectively put the most powerful agencies in the world against him. You seem awfully quick to assume that he sold his country out. One might at least question whether that was in fact what our leaders did when they granted the power to spy on our entire citizenry at will. And we, as a citizenry, were not to know about it. To quote from a non-legal, but relevant source:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Who precisely has betrayed their country? Which value is of higher importance? What price are we willing to pay for supposed safety?

Back in 1776, you would have been railing against Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George Washington, and Company for being narcissistic fame whores who sold out their own country.

It seems Glenn Greenwald wants to become as important as what he is reporting about, I watched him yesterday morning being interviewed and he's a drama queen.

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

Really? You should have mentioned "self-destructive" narcissistic fame whore, as he has effectively put the most powerful agencies in the world against him. You seem awfully quick to assume that he sold his country out. One might at least question whether that was in fact what our leaders did when they granted the power to spy on our entire citizenry at will. And we, as a citizenry, were not to know about it. To quote from a non-legal, but relevant source:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Who precisely has betrayed their country? Which value is of higher importance? What price are we willing to pay for supposed safety?